The literature in active response modes was reviewed indicating generally negative results. However, an investigation of the theoretical perspectives involved in the research indicated that only a small number of papers had employed a theoretical basis for constructing the active response modes under investigation. These studies generally reported facilitative effects of active response modes. The atheoretical nature of the active response mode literature was discussed and one theoretical perspective, “levels of processing/distinctiveness of encoding,” was suggested as a possible heuristic for future research.
References
1.
BruningR. H.KennedyE.Some factors in children's identification of key words in written passages. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D. C., 1975.
2.
MccruddenT. J.Adjunct aids and prose processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, 1979.
3.
DayJ. D.Training summarization skills: A comparison of teaching methods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1980.
4.
ArnoldH. F.The comparative effectiveness of certain study techniques in the field of history. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1942, 33, 449–457.
5.
AubleP. M.FranksJ. J.SoraciS. A.Effort toward comprehension: Elaboration or “aha!”?Memory and Cognition, 1979, 7, 426–434.
6.
BaddeleyA. D.The trouble with levels: A reexamination of Craik and Lockhart's framework for memory research. Psychology Review, 1978, 85, 139–152.
7.
BarryR. J.The concept of mathemagenic behavior: An analysis of its heuristic value. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1974, 38, 311–321.
8.
BowerG. H.Selective facilitation and interference in retention of prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 1–8.
9.
BretzingB. H.KulhavyR. W.Note-taking and depth of processions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1979, 4, 145–153.
10.
BrownA. L.CampioneJ. C.DayJ. D.Learning to learn: On training students to learn from texts. Educational Researcher, 1981, 10, 14–21.
11.
CarverR. P.A critical review of mathemagenic behaviors and the effects of questions upon the retention of prose materials. Journal of Reading Behavior, 1972, 4, 93–119.
12.
CashenV. M.LeightK. C.Role of the isolation effect in the formal educational setting. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 484–486.
13.
CraikF. I. M.JacobyL. L.A process view of short-term retention. In RestleF. (Ed.): Cognitive Theory (Vol. 1), Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1975.
14.
CraikF. I. M.LockhartR. S.Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1972, 11, 671–684.
15.
CraikF. I. M.TulvingE.Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1975, 104, 268–294.
16.
CrouseJ. H.IdsteinP.Effects of encoding cues on prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63, 309–313.
17.
DansereauD. G.CollingsK. W.McdonaldB. A.HolleyC. D.GarlandJ. C.KiekhoffG.EvansS. H.Development and evaluation of a learning strategy training program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979, 71, 64–73.
18.
EysenckM. W.Levels of processing: A critique. British Journal of Psychology, 1978, 69, 159–169.
19.
FawH. W.WallerT. G.Mathemagenic behaviors and efficiency in learning from prose materials: Review, critique, and recommendations. Review of Educational Research, 1976, 46, 691–720.
20.
GloverJ. A.PlakeB. S.ZimmerJ. W.Distinctiveness of encoding and memory for learning tasks. Journal of Educational Psychology, (in press).
21.
GloverJ. A.PlakeB. S.RobertsB.ZimmerJ. W.PalmereM.Distinctiveness of encoding: The effects of paraphrasing and drawing inferences on memory from prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, (in press).
22.
GloverJ. A.ZimmerJ. W.FilbeckR. W.PlakeB. S.Effects of training students to identify the semantic base of prose materials. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1980, 13, 655–668.
23.
IdsteinP.JenkinsJ. R.Underlining vs. repetitive reading. Journal of Educational Research, 1972, 65, 321–323.
24.
JacobyL. L.CraikF. I. M.BeggI.Effects of decision difficulty on recognition and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1979, 18, 585–600.
25.
JacobyL. L.CraikF. I. M.Effects of elaboration of processing as encoding and retrieval: Trace distinctiveness and recovery of initial context. In CermakL. S.CraikF. I. M. (Eds.), Levels of processing and human memory.Hillsdale, N. J., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1979.
26.
KintschW.Learning, memory and conceptual processes. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1970.
27.
KintschW.Van DijkT. A.Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 363–394.
28.
KochS.Psychology: A Study of Science, (ed.), Vol. 1, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
29.
KuhnT. S.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
30.
LockhartR. S.CraikR. I. M.Levels of processing: A reply to Eysneck. British Journal of Psychology, 1978, 69, 171–175.
31.
LockhartR. S.CraikF. I. M.JacobyL. L.Depth of processing, recognition, and recall: Some aspects of general memory system. In BrownJ. (Ed.). Recall and Recognition.London: Wiley, 1976.
32.
MatthewsC. O.Comparison of methods of study for immediate and delayed recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1938, 29, 101–106.
33.
MayerR. E.Twenty years of research on advanced organizers: Assimilation theory is still the best predictor of results. Instructional Science, 1979, 8, 133–167.
34.
MayerR. E.BromageB. K.Different recall protocols for technical texts due to advanced organizers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1980, 72, 209–225.
35.
Mistler-LachmanJ.Depth of comprehension and sentence memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973, 13, 98–106.
36.
MusgraveB. S.Short-term memory with different organizations of prose paragraphs. Psychonomic Science, 1972, 19, 397–399.
37.
NelsonT. O.Repetition and depth of processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1977, 16, 151–172.
38.
PetersonC. H.GloverJ. A.RunningR. R.An examination of three prose learning strategies on reading comprehension. Journal of General Psychology, 1980, 102, 39–52.
39.
ProsserG. V.The rule of relevant active questions in learning based upon successive presentations. Instructional Science, 1978, 7, 359–383.
40.
RickardsJ. P.AugustG. J.Generative underlining strategies in prose recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1975, 67, 860–865.
41.
RossB. H.The more the better? Number of decisions as a determinant of memorability. Memory and Cognition, 1981, 9, 23–33.
42.
SchallertD. L.Improving memory for prose: The relationship between depth of processing and context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1976, 15, 621–632.
43.
SehulsterJ. R.MclaughlinJ. P.CrouseJ. H.Separation of storage and retrieval processes in recall of prose. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 103, 583–586.
44.
ShimmerlikS. M.Organization theory and memory for prose: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 1978, 48, 103–120.
45.
StordahlK. E.CristensenC. M.The effect of study techniques on comprehension and retention. Journal of Educational Research, 1956, 49, 561–570.
46.
ToddW. B.KesslerC. C.Influence of response mode, sex, reading, ability, and level of difficulty on four measures of recall of meaningfully written material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 62, 229–234.
47.
TurnerM. B.Philosophy and the Science of Behavior, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1965.